EPTSo philosophy is awesome, when done by Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Brian Greene, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, etc.
Philosophy and Why I Think It Matters - Page 3
| Blogs > TheGloob |
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
So philosophy is awesome, when done by Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Brian Greene, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, etc. | ||
|
Prog
United Kingdom1470 Posts
On July 29 2014 17:58 Sapphire.lux wrote: I'd add that some form of philosophy is integral to the pursuit of knowledge. The problem is, you have to have extensive knowledge on the subject matter first. So in essence, the "new" philosophers are the top, top scientific minds that are operating at the limit of our understanding of reality. Fun fact: This is exactly what Aristotle said 2400 years ago and what various philosophers actually do since then. There are excellent philosophers of mathematics/logic that have a good reputation in the fields of mathematics (Shapiro or Kripke, for instance), Philosophers of science that operate with historical evidence (like Hasok Chang), Philosophers that work with computational and neuroscientific approaches (Paul and Patricia Churchland, or Paul Thagard for example), Philosophers of physics that have background in physics (Simon Saunders or Richard Dawid for instance),... For anyone with a decent background in philosophy there is no relevant gap between "old" and "new" philosophers based on knowledge of any subject matter. There were always philosophers operating with up to date tools and respect/integrate what is done in other fields. But you have to be in academic philosophy to even know these guys exist, the layman view on philosophy does not notice them. | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On July 29 2014 18:47 Prog wrote: Fun fact: This is exactly what Aristotle said 2400 years ago and what various philosophers actually do since then. There are excellent philosophers of mathematics/logic that have a good reputation in the fields of mathematics (Shapiro or Kripke, for instance), Philosophers of science that operate with historical evidence (like Hasok Chang), Philosophers that work with computational and neuroscientific approaches (Paul and Patricia Churchland, or Paul Thagard for example), Philosophers of physics that have background in physics (Simon Saunders or Richard Dawid for instance),... For anyone with a decent background in philosophy there is no relevant gap between "old" and "new" philosophers based on knowledge of any subject matter. There were always philosophers operating with up to date tools and respect/integrate what is done in other fields. But you have to be in academic philosophy to even know these guys exist, the layman view on philosophy does not notice them. I will argue that Aristotle was, by today's standards, closer to a scientist rather then philosopher. He tried his best to understand the world he was living in using the tools and methods available to him at the time, at a time where the scientific method was not established. Had he lived today, i could see him in astrophysics :p It's nice that you brought up mathematics, because that is probably the most misunderstood subject ever. You see, mathematics does not bring or hold any knowledge. In layman's terms, mathematics can be described as a language. Like the English language, it can be used to describe real things, or complete nonsense. For example, you can say: "What is the color of pain?". A correct sentence from every point of view of the language itself, but it holds no meaning, and thus it is completely useless (unless you go in to poetry-art- but that is different because it stops describing reality or dealing with knowledge and instead it tries to please the senses) So when mathematics is understood in that light, one can see the difference between how it is used in physics, chemistry, astrophysics, etc, and how it is used by pure mathematicians. I think Lawrence K. described it best as "the language of the Univers" But without knowing the message or what it is you want to communicate, any language is useless. So it is a prerequisite of science and making advancement (and understanding for that matter) the nature of things, not science that decipher reality on it's own. I think there is a massive gap between the old philosophy and the new, because the "old" tried to understand the nature of things based on what was available at the time. Now, we have the scientific method that has proved successful in doing just that, so philosophy has been broken in many ways (physics, psychology, etc.). It is possible of course that there are still some things of value there, that will inevitably break away to to form a new field of science, but as of now, philosophy matters little if at all to our progression in understanding the world we live in. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
And the idea that mathematics doesn't bring any knowledge requires a very strange view of what knowledge is. How is Pythagoras' theorem not knowledge, I've always wondered. Plus the idea that mathematics are the language of the universe (it brings us back to Galileo btw) seems naïve at best. Kantian view seems to me in everyway superior, but hey, you don't care about reading philosophy, unless it agrees with your world view I guess. | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On July 29 2014 20:05 corumjhaelen wrote: How much philosophy in a post that claims it has no value. And the idea that mathematics doesn't bring any knowledge requires a very strange view of what knowledge is. How is Pythagoras' theorem not knowledge, I've always wondered. Plus the idea that mathematics are the language of the universe (it brings us back to Galileo btw) seems naïve at best. Kantian view seems to me in everyway superior, but hey, you don't care about reading philosophy, unless it agrees with your world view I guess. It is the language of the Universe because it is the only tool, or as i said "language", that can accurately describe it in detail. Pythagora used mathematics, like in all geometry, to describe and solve real world problems. How does it bring us to Galileo and why is that view naive? It's not mine btw, it's Lawrance K., one of the most important physisits of today. But hey, better hold a 200 year old view then to keep up with the times. | ||
|
Prog
United Kingdom1470 Posts
Furthermore, I think that any other science relies on mathematics being true. Additionally, scientists who use mathematics for whatever purpose believe that the operation they use are correct and they have reasons for that believe. Combined, this is likely enough to ascribe knowledge of mathematical operations to those scientists (they have a justified true belief about mathematical operations). Finally, I'd like to point out that I gave you examples of philosophers who tried to understand the nature of things based on what was available at the time from the last ~30 years. Richard Dawid, for instance (I know him personally so I am confident in my claims here), has a PhD in theoretical physics and uses his expertise in physics for philosophical work. His book was even endorsed by John Schwarz and David Gross. Something interesting that he pointed out is that there are important physical theories, especially in high-energy physics, that are not something that can be easily (if at all) argued for with traditional scientific method (the one you praised so much). String theory is the prime example for that. A decision whether we should believe string theory to be true can not be made with experiments, so we need to rely on other ways to justify a belief. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On July 29 2014 20:21 Sapphire.lux wrote: It is the language of the Universe because it is the only tool, or as i said "language", that can accurately describe it in detail. Pythagora used mathematics, like in all geometry, to describe and solve real world problems. How does it bring us to Galileo and why is that view naive? It's not mine btw, it's Lawrance K., one of the most important physisits of today. But hey, better hold a 200 year old view then to keep up with the times. Because Galileo was to my knowledge the first to formulate it "Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe ... It is written in the language of mathematics". So hey, you can hold to your 400 yo view if you want, I won't make that an argument against it, i'll just say that your anti Kantian argument is bullshit, but I guess you have no idea about Kant anyway. And because it would be the strangest of miracle that the mathematics we'd developped independantly of physical problem would suddenly come up in totally unrelated area. Cf Wigner's famous article The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. Declaring "well, it just so happens mathematics is the language of the universe" is nothing but blind acceptance of this "coincidence". | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On July 29 2014 20:23 Prog wrote: I highly doubt that mathematics does not bring or hold any knowledge. I'd like you to bring sources for such a bold claim. I personally think that a proposition like "The sum of all the angles in a triangle equals 180 degrees" is true, is known by us and is a proposition out of the realm of mathematics. [this point was also given by corumjhaelen] Please show how this does not qualify as knowledge (without some scepticist escape route). I think it probably originates from a proposition at the end of Wittgenstein's Tractatus, which said maths proposition were always obiously false or wrong, because maths is just a logic language. Needless to say I think it's as hilarious as his claim about having solved philosophy. | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On July 29 2014 20:23 Prog wrote: I highly doubt that mathematics does not bring or hold any knowledge. I'd like you to bring sources for such a bold claim. I personally think that a proposition like "The sum of all the angles in a triangle equals 180 degrees" is true, is known by us and is a proposition out of the realm of mathematics. [this point was also given by corumjhaelen] Please show how this does not qualify as knowledge (without some scepticist escape route). It seems like i wasn't clear enough so i'll try again. Mathematics, just like any other language, can "bring" knowledge when it is applied to real world things/ used to describe real world things. The geometry example you give, is mathematics applied to the real world. So in and of itself, it's just a tool, a "language", but when applied to real world problems, it can describe them and solve them. I don't think i can make it more clear that that, and i'm afraid that i'll just have to direct to to lectures of Lawrence K. and Brian Green for a more in depth understanding. Furthermore, I think that any other science relies on mathematics being true. Additionally, scientists who use mathematics for whatever purpose believe that the operation they use are correct and they have reasons for that believe. Combined, this is likely enough to ascribe knowledge of mathematical operations to those scientists (they have a justified true belief about mathematical operations). They have that "believe" because it has been tested for hundreds of years. But again i think you misunderstood. I didn't say mathematics is false, i said it can describe real things, or useless things. Scientist use it for the former, most of what is done in school for example has little real world meaning (as it doesn't describe real world phenomenon). Finally, I'd like to point out that I gave you examples of philosophers who tried to understand the nature of things based on what was available at the time from the last ~30 years. Richard Dawid, for instance (I know him personally so I am confident in my claims here), has a PhD in theoretical physics and uses his expertise in physics for philosophical work. His book was even endorsed by John Schwarz and David Gross. Something interesting that he pointed out is that there are important physical theories, especially in high-energy physics, that are not something that can be easily (if at all) argued for with traditional scientific method (the one you praised so much). I know there are "good" philosophers out there, that's why i usually write "most" or add in that there are "exceptions". String theory is the prime example for that. A decision whether we should believe string theory to be true can not be made with experiments, so we need to rely on other ways to justify a belief. String theory is far from being anywhere near ready do prove itself, that's why it is a work in progress. It is not capable of making predictions for instance. Until that day, you will "believe" in it for 2 reasons: you like it and so you choose to believe it's true (hello religion!!) or you are invested emotionally and career wise (you work on it). It is a nice theory that demands a lot of work, but as of now, the only real progress it has made has been in mathematics (we talked about this). Until the day it can make predictions (that will be tested), it has more chance of being wrong then being right (like most ideas have always been). | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On July 29 2014 20:40 corumjhaelen wrote: Because Galileo was to my knowledge the first to formulate it "Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe ... It is written in the language of mathematics". So hey, you can hold to your 400 yo view if you want, I won't make that an argument against it, i'll just say that your anti Kantian argument is bullshit, but I guess you have no idea about Kant anyway. And because it would be the strangest of miracle that the mathematics we'd developped independantly of physical problem would suddenly come up in totally unrelated area. Cf Wigner's famous article The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. Declaring "well, it just so happens mathematics is the language of the universe" is nothing but blind acceptance of this "coincidence". Oh FFS it's a figure of speech!!! We might just as well meet some super advanced alien life form and have it go "Mathematics? ahahaha yeah, we tried that, but it only takes you so far.. Now here is something MUCH better to describe reality!!" But until that day it is the best tool we have that seems to describe the natural phenomenon and we can be proud as a species to have come up with such an abstract concept that applies so well in describing reality (though not perfect) | ||
|
Prog
United Kingdom1470 Posts
On July 29 2014 20:55 Sapphire.lux wrote: It seems like i wasn't clear enough so i'll try again. Mathematics, just like any other language, can "bring" knowledge when it is applied to real world things/ used to describe real world things. The geometry example you give, is mathematics applied to the real world. So in and of itself, it's just a tool, a "language", but when applied to real world problems, it can describe them and solve them. I don't think i can make it more clear that that, and i'm afraid that i'll just have to direct to to lectures of Lawrence K. and Brian Green for a more in depth understanding. Let's try one last thing in simple argumentative form: (1) Mathematics only brings knowledge when applied to real world things. (2) In real world things you will not come by a perfect circle. (3) We have equations that are true of a perfect circle. --- (4) We have true, but unknown equations with regard to a perfect circle. (based on 1, 2 and 3) That seems valid, but very implausible to me. I personally think that the mistake is in (1). (1) seems just false. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On July 29 2014 20:55 Sapphire.lux wrote: It seems like i wasn't clear enough so i'll try again. Mathematics, just like any other language, can "bring" knowledge when it is applied to real world things/ used to describe real world things. The geometry example you give, is mathematics applied to the real world. So in and of itself, it's just a tool, a "language", but when applied to real world problems, it can describe them and solve them. I don't think i can make it more clear that that, and i'm afraid that i'll just have to direct to to lectures of Lawrence K. and Brian Green for a more in depth understanding. I've never seen a triangle in the real world. Please show me one. And why would you limit knowledge to physical things ? Or from another point of view, isn't mathematics more properly the knowledge of how said language works ? Because some proposition are true and false in maths, indepently of what they describe. I read your books when you'll read the Critic of pure reason. On July 29 2014 21:04 Sapphire.lux wrote: Oh FFS it's a figure of speech!!! We might just as well meet some super advanced alien life form and have it go "Mathematics? ahahaha yeah, we tried that, but it only takes you so far.. Now here is something MUCH better to describe reality!!" But until that day it is the best tool we have that seems to describe the natural phenomenon and we can be proud as a species to have come up with such an abstract concept that applies so well in describing reality (though not perfect) So now you have no answer to Wigner's question, you're just saying "hey I won't complain". Much more reasonnable already. A pity though, it's really interesting, my physics teacher was right to talk about it. Crazy how he was interested in philosophy of science though... | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On July 29 2014 21:20 Prog wrote: Let's try one last thing in simple argumentative form: (1) Mathematics only brings knowledge when applied to real world things. (2) In real world things you will not come by a perfect circle. (3) We have equations that are true of a perfect circle. --- (4) We have true, but unknown equations with regard to a perfect circle. (based on 1, 2 and 3) That seems valid, but very implausible to me. I personally think that the mistake is in (1). (1) seems just false. We don't have perfect circles, but through slightly more advanced mathematics you can adjust the equations for those imperfect shapes. There are ways of determining the area for example of any shape using equations meant for regular shapes. Tell me what knowledge does mathematics give us, when not applied to any real world phenomenon, shape, situation, etc? It seems to me that almost by definition your (1) is true. How can you get knowledge of the real world if you don't apply/ use/ look at the real world? | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On July 29 2014 21:31 corumjhaelen wrote: I've never seen a triangle in the real world. Please show me one. And why would you limit knowledge to physical things ? Or from another point of view, isn't mathematics more properly the knowledge of how said language works ? Because some proposition are true and false in maths, indepently of what they describe. I read your books when you'll read the Critic of pure reason. So now you have no answer to Wigner's question, you're just saying "hey I won't complain". Much more reasonnable already. A pity though, it's really interesting, my physics teacher was right to talk about it. Crazy how he was interested in philosophy of science though... The quote function seems to give me problems now so i'll write in one block. In regards to your geometry questions, i've answered already (after you posted though). You get the "ideal" scenario, then you modify and apply to the real world. Sometimes just through approximation, other times by making rather complicated equations from the original "ideal" ones. Everything has humble beginnings though so in school you are usually thought the basics. Ask an engineer about "real world" mathematics if you are interested on the subject. We did not invent it independently of the physical world. It has been build over thousands of years starting from real world needs and going in to the abstract (not connected to anything real). And it's far from perfect but it's the best we have. | ||
|
Prog
United Kingdom1470 Posts
I believe that (1) is false. I think we have knowledge that for a perfect circle C = 2πr. That is knowledge not applied to any real world phenomenon, but it is still knowledge. On another note: On July 29 2014 20:42 corumjhaelen wrote: I think it probably originates from a proposition at the end of Wittgenstein's Tractatus, which said maths proposition were always obiously false or wrong, because maths is just a logic language. Needless to say I think it's as hilarious as his claim about having solved philosophy. You are correct that this is something out of the Tractatus (for instance in 6.2 he writes that mathematics is a logical method [not sure whether my translation is good, I only have the german Tractatus] 6.234 is similar). In 6.21 he writes that sentences of mathematics do not express thoughts, which I never agreed with, or perhaps never really understood. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
Also I have a very solid formation in maths (probably better than most physicists), did an engineering school, a project in astrophysics (sucky, but still) so don't worry, I'm quite aware what you're talking about, and I think it doesn't further your argument at all. For me it's just a description of how maths is used by some people, but I don't see how it gives away the nature of maths at all. And thanks for the check on Wittgesteing Prog, I just quoted it from memory having read it once at least one year ago, so you're certainly more precise than I am. And happy to see I'm not the only one perplex by this... | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On July 29 2014 21:56 Prog wrote: It does not matter for the argument that you can use equations for imperfect shapes. The argument just claims that if you think (1), (2) and (3) is true, you have to accept that we have true equations of a perfect circle, which are not knowledge (4). I think the conclusion (4) is implausible and believe that (2) and (3) are certainly true. You yourself just accepted (2) and I guess you also accept (3). Now you either have to accept (4) or discard (1). To accept (4) you must have a very strange notion of knowledge, that I cannot grasp at all. I believe that (1) is false. I think we have knowledge that for a perfect circle C = 2πr. That is knowledge not applied to any real world phenomenon, but it is still knowledge. It is not knowledge about the real world. You can call it knowledge of basic mathematics, but to have relevance to the real world (and this is what i was talking about as "knowledge") it has to be modified. You may call many kinds of "knowledge", but i was and am talking about real world, human nature, phenomenon, etc knowledge. Things that philosophy says it deals with but science actually does. So talking about knowledge of the smurfs or gods or anything else that's not rooted in reality is fine, but not the objective of my post. On another note: You are correct that this is something out of the Tractatus (for instance in 6.2 he writes that mathematics is a logical method [not sure whether my translation is good, I only have the german Tractatus] 6.234 is similar). In 6.21 he writes that sentences of mathematics do not express thoughts, which I never agreed with, or perhaps never really understood. What do you, Prog, think mathematics is and does? To stay relevant to the thread, i ask of anyone that is willing to participate (OP?) what real world knowledge has philosophy brought us in the last 50-100 years? Or if "knowledge" of the real world is to specific, then what kinds of knowledge does modern philosophy bring? | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On July 29 2014 22:05 corumjhaelen wrote: I'm behind Prog on everything, and will let him keep on going, he's a better philosopher than I am^^ Also I have a very solid formation in maths (probably better than most physicists), did an engineering school, a project in astrophysics (sucky, but still) so don't worry, I'm quite aware what you're talking about, and I think it doesn't further your argument at all. You don't have to validate yourself, just write arguments and counter arguments; especially since you have such an impressive background. EDIT: as in background in mathematics and science, so you can articulate your own opinions in a rational manner without just resorting to quotes and wikipedia pages. For me it's just a description of how maths is used by some people, but I don't see how it gives away the nature of maths at all. What is the nature of mathematics? | ||
|
Prog
United Kingdom1470 Posts
On July 29 2014 19:44 Sapphire.lux wrote: It's nice that you brought up mathematics, because that is probably the most misunderstood subject ever. You see, mathematics does not bring or hold any knowledge. I thought this is false. And I believe that i gave a good argument why it is false. In this initial statement there was no further qualification to knowledge, so I do not care that the mathematical knowledge I argued for is not about the "real world" (whatever that actually means). It is still knowledge, it is still important to us and while maybe not directly knowledge about the "real world" it is something that helps us understanding our world. Without purely mathematical, abstract knowledge we certainly would not know so much about our world. This mathematical knowledge gives us tools to work with in other sciences. Now in the next step, if anyone accepts this sort of mathematical knowledge as a tool used in other sciences, what's so different with philosophy as providing something similar? For instance: Inference to the best explanation is something that scientists frequently employ. (Not only sciences, we employ it in our everyday life all the time!) But it is something outside of the realm of the actual science. It is a problem of philosophy. If philosophy can provide a good account of inference to the best explanations it benefits sciences that employ it. This is certainly not a comprehensive account of philosophy, but it captures a lot of what is actually done in philosophy of science. Reflection on sciences to understand how scientific belief formation works and how it should work to produce knowledge reliably. If philosophy can in some case function as providing tools and frameworks for sciences, then we have a pretty good reason to ascribe instrumental value to it. | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On July 29 2014 23:13 Prog wrote: I don't know what (the nature of) mathematics is. That's a pretty difficult question. I could not even give a good answer to what (the nature of) philosophy is, even though I studied it the last 7 years. I think it is easier, and maybe even better to just give examples of mathematics, or of philosophy (and I tried to do that). However, my goal was in a sense humble. You said this: ha it's ok, i don't know what it is either (seems very philosophical to me :D). The question was addressed at corumjhaelen. I thought this is false. And I believe that i gave a good argument why it is false. In this initial statement there was no further qualification to knowledge, so I do not care that the mathematical knowledge I argued for is not about the "real world" (whatever that actually means). It is still knowledge, it is still important to us and while maybe not directly knowledge about the "real world" it is something that helps us understanding our world. Without purely mathematical, abstract knowledge we certainly would not know so much about our world. This mathematical knowledge gives us tools to work with in other sciences. You are correct, but that sentence was fallowed by a couple of paragraphs that explained it. However, this is where my writing skills are to blame and i can see how it gave the wrong impression. Now in the next step, if anyone accepts this sort of mathematical knowledge as a tool used in other sciences, what's so different with philosophy as providing something similar? It depends what it provides and if that "thing" couldn't have been created by the scientist by himself without the need for external influence (from philosophy), lets see. For instance: Inference to the best explanation is something that scientists frequently employ. (Not only sciences, we employ it in our everyday life all the time!) But it is something outside of the realm of the actual science. It is a problem of philosophy. A problem of philosophy, but where did it come from? I highly suspect it's as simple as evolutionary deductive thinking. Or in other words, that is simply how our brains evolved to make sense of the environment, predict predators actions, food and weather cycles, etc. The basics of these are found in animals other then humans. If this is now the study of logic, it is fine and interesting IMO, but you will see that it also creates massive problems since, like i said, it is an evolutionary trend, it is also highly limited. If philosophy can provide a good account of inference to the best explanations it benefits sciences that employ it. This is certainly not a comprehensive account of philosophy, but it captures a lot of what is actually done in philosophy of science. Reflection on sciences to understand how scientific belief formation works and how it should work to produce knowledge reliably. If philosophy can in some case function as providing tools and frameworks for sciences, then we have a pretty good reason to ascribe instrumental value to it. The argument is, like i said in the beginning, was this the result of the study of logic or not. Since it is present in a primitive degree even with animals, i think it's clear "inference" is simply a natural way our brains function. We can get in to evolutionary biology and neuroscience to find out the specifics of this, though logic does have it's merits. I said there is a massive problem here, and that is that the world as a hole does not function by what our brains deem as "common sense" We evolved to escape tigers and throw rocks, not to understand quantum physics. As a result, much of what we call common sense or what logic tells us, is null when trying to understand how a particle can have no mass and act as a particle and as a wave at the same time; or how can there be particles created from nothing and in less then a fraction of a second disappear back in to nothing; or how a particle can be at 2 places at the same time; etc, etc Things get so fucked up and mind bending that they can not be understood. Observed yes, calculated yes, tested yes, made in to predictions and then confirmed yes, but never truly understood by anyone because our brains are just limited in imagining and "naturally" deducing at a macro level (the tiger, the rock, etc). | ||
| ||
